Tuesday, August 25, 2009

PARIS LIBERATED (WHITES ONLY)

Sixty five years ago today Paris was liberated from a racist supremacist regime. But something was missing in the column of Free French troops that marched triumphantly into the city, the black colonial troops who formed about 65% of the French army. As the allies pushed deeper into Nazi held territory French General Charles de Gaulle asked his British and American allies to allow French forces to lead the columns of allied troops entering the French capital. They agreed, but only if the black troops were removed from the French columns.

"It is more desirable," wrote General Eisenhower's Chief of Staff "that the division. . . consist of white personnel. " That view was seconded by British commanders. The sacrifice of black colonial troops deserves to be remembered, by the time Paris fell in 1940 over 17,000 of them had given their lives, but so to do this incident. Allied commandeers were willing to let black soldiers share in the death of war, but they refused to afford them a share of the credit in the victory over the racist ideology of a fascist dictator. The liberation of Paris serves as a reminder that having an evil enemy is not a mark of morality. States will cloak their actions in lofty rhetoric, even the Nazis did this, but ultimately their motivation is geopolitical, not humanitarian. The more people realize this the harder it will become for governments to abdicate their own responsibilities by focusing on the abuses of their foes.

Friday, August 21, 2009

AMNESTY, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS DETAIL GOVERNMENT REPRESSION IN WAKE OF HONDURAS COUP

A new report by Amnesty International documents the extent of government repression in Honduras in the wake of a military backed coup that forced democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya sent into exile. An Amnesty team visited a police station in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa to record testimony from seventy-five Zelaya supporters who had been detained by military supported police at a peaceful July 30 rally. Most of the detainees had visible injuries, the aftermath of assaults by stone throwing, baton wielding police.

The protesters reported that they were attacked and beaten by police, backed by military units, while demonstrating for the return of Zelaya. Protesters saw their recording equipment confiscated by police as they were rounded up and brought to the police station. One demonstrator reported police telling him "[w]hether it’s by choice or by force, you have to be with this government” before beating and detaining him. One of ten students being held from the march recalled

The police were throwing stones, they rounded us up, they threw us face down on
the ground and they beat us – there are people with fractures, with head wounds,
they beat us on the buttocks.They stole our cameras, they beat us if we raised
our heads, they beat us when they were getting us into the police cars. They said
“Cry and we’ll stop”

Some of the police used to suppress demonstrations wore bandannas, while all lacked any visible identification and referred to each other using nicknames, making identification of involved individuals impossible.

The 19 page report reports that at least two protesters, nineteen year-old Isis Obed Murillodied and schoolteacher Roger Abraham Vallejohave, were killed by gunfire from police, female demonstrators have been sexually assaulted, while hundreds others have been beaten, arbitrarily detained, and held without charges as the de facto authorities have deployed soldiers and elite police units to suppress dissent, all in violation of international covenants to which Honduras is a party.

In addition to police unites the de facto government as deployed soldiers in the suppression of dissent. Soldiers backing police action against protesters were reported to have yelled incitements to police attacking protesters. Military roadblock have also been used to restrict freedom of movement outside of Tegucigalpa and frustrate the work of journalists and human rights workers.

A series of separate reports by the group Reporters Without Borders reports that journalists have been particularly targeted by the coup regime. “By suspending or shutting down the operations of certain local and international broadcast media, those who staged the coup have shown they clearly want to cover up what is going on. We urge all sides to respect press freedom,” commented the media rights group. The coup leaders blocked transmissions from certain radio and TV stations the day of the takeover and provided others with lists of foreign programs which they would not be allowed to air. Violence against journalists began hours after the coup when soldiers stormed the offices of Radio Progreso and halted the work of the staff. Violence and intimidation targeting the media has continued since then with numerous reporters, both from within and outside the country, being beaten, threatened, and having equipment confiscated.

The offices of Radio Globo were protected from a similar attack by over four-hundred opposition demonstrators after the station was tipped off about an impending raid by a pro-Zelaya plain-clothes police officer. Still, the de facto authorities have successfully shut down a number of stations seen as sympathetic to the ousted leader and intimidated individual journalists.

A number of journalists including Lidieth Diaz of Radio Globo, Gustavo Cardoza of the Jesuit run education station Radio Progreso, Julio Umaña of the daily Tiempo, Alfredo López of Radio Coco Dulce, and Venezaulan journalists Adriana Sivori, María José Díaz, Larri Sánchez, Eduardo Silvera, Pedro Quezada, Franklin Maldonado, Madelein García, Alexander Salazar, Hedor Lanten, Clayban Saint and Fredy Quintero, from Telesur and VTV have either been beaten, arrested, or seen equipment confiscated. In addition Allan Adális Martínez of Radio Alegre was fired after producing a report favorable to Zelaya and others such as Esdras Amado López of and Eduardo Maldonado have gone into hiding or requested political asylum.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Al-Shifa Bombing

In commemoration to all whose lives were lost as a result of the terrorist atrocity in Sudan eleven years ago today.

Monday, August 17, 2009

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION


That noble intent is a pretext, and not a preoccupation, of foreign policy makers is made so obvious by a voluminous historical record that it should be a self-evident truism not worth repeating. Recently declassified documents reveal President Nixon approached Brazil's military dictator in 1971 with promises of cash and other assistance in exchange for assistance in overthrowing Chile's democratic government and other leftist governments in the region, much as had occurred seven years prior in Brazil when a U.S backed coup ousted the democratic government and replaced with a neo-Nazi police state. Wednesday marks the fifty-sixth anniversary of the end of parliamentary democracy in Iran at the hands of a U.S/British coup that brought to power a ruthless tyrant who would rule for twenty-six years. Forty-four years ago today the first major ground battle of the Vietnam War involving American forces began, a war fought to foster democratic governance, a war that the U.S entered to prevent a democratic nationwide referendum and exited propping up a petty tyrant who idolized Hitler.

That disdain for democracy, when it produces governments hostile to perceived U.S interests, continues to the present. Over the weekend a senior official from Honduras's ousted government suggested U.S complicity in the June 28 coup that removed democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from office. At this point those claims are impossible to verify. It is entirely plausible that the U.S did authorize Zelaya's ouster and equally possible that it did not. What has, however, become increasingly evident since the coup is the U.S's tacit support for the coup government.

Although the coup was of concern when it happened the rhetorical response of the U.S government was appropriate. The military's actions were denounced, President Obama declared Zelaya's ouster a coup and demanded the restoration of democratic governance, the Pentagon halted joint exercises with the Honduran military, and the State Department suspended some aid. However, the U.S failed to follow up on this initial display with the use of its substantial leverage over Honduras, indeed President Obama suggested that advocates of such an approach were guilty of "hypocrisy".

The U.S accounts for 80% of all of Honduras's foreign trade, the imposition of sanctions, as mandated by U.S law against any nation where a military coup has occurred, would compel the Honduran elites supporting the coup to allow for the return of the Constitutional order. In addition the U.S retains close relations with the upper echelons of the Honduran military, trained at the infamous School of the Americas, the U.S even maintains a contingent of American soldiers . Due to the enormous U.S influence in the country the survival of the coup regime has been dependent on tacit U.S support. And the U.S has given that support. After the coup the Honduran business community enlisted the help of former White House Counsel Lanny Davis to lobby on their behalf. Although he appears not to know much about Honduras he has made known that his employers are satisfied with the American response to the coup.

That response has enabled the coup government to retain power, cracking down harshly on pro-Zelaya demonstrations, imposing curfews, detaining opposition lawmakers and other officials at military bases, dissapearing and assassinating opponents, shutting down media outlets, extra-judicial killings, the reconstitution of the Battalion 3-16 death squad, and other gross violations of human rights. The situation in Honduras recalls a dark era of U.S-Latin American relations marked by death squads, disappearances, and dictators.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

ISRAELI PROPAGANDA MANUAL LEAKED


The tactics used by apologists for states guilty of obvious abuses of human rights are not difficult for an informed observer to discern. The more blatant the abuses the more obvious these tactics become, for the informed observer. In the case of Israel apologists for atrocities pander to racism towards Palestinians who they portray as irrational, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi fanatics, attacking critics, even Jewish critics, personally with allegations of Antisemitism, use loaded words like terrorist, fundamentalist, radical, violent, and rejectionist for Palestinian actions and counter-terrorist unit, targeted killing, security fence, and natural growth for Israeli ones. Even Israeli propaganda has a special word, hasbarah, explanation.

All of this is obvious to an informed observer, but that knowledge doesn't help mitigate the effect of these tactics. A recently prepared and leaked Israeli propaganda manual from the Israel Project might. Marked "Not for distribution or publication" the report, accessible here, by Frank Luntz on how best to influence "persaudables", replete with sample propaganda posters, quotes, and statistics to repeat, was recently leaked to Newsweek. For those not familiar with the situation or the debate surrounding Israel.

Reading and circulating this hasbarah manual will better equip those outside of the activist community to recognize and discount arguments relying on the hasbarah strategies it lays out.

Below is a sampling of the manual, the section instructing propagandists on the most effective words to use in their apologetics.
• “Accountability.” It is surprising that the value Americans want most in their own
government has not been used by Israeli spokespeople to describe what’s needed in the
current dialogue. Stop using “confidence-building measures” and start using
“accountability” to describe what’s needed most within the Palestinian government(s).
• “Building”: Never talk about “giving” the Palestinians something. It sounds too
paternalistic. Instead, talk about “building” because it suggests a step-by-step, layer-bylayer
improvement in conditions. Giving reminds people that you’re in the stronger
position and that creates more sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
• Children: As often as possible, make the stakes of achieving peace about providing a
future for both Palestinian and Israeli children in which they can live, learn, and grow up
without the constant fear of attack.
• “Come to Jerusalem to work for peace”: The visual symbolism isn’t lost on American
ears. It’s an active challenge to turn words into deeds.
• “Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise”: This is how Americans believe the
conflict must be solved. When you give a little, you get a lot.
• “Deliberately firing rockets into civilian communities”: Combine terrorist motive with
civilian visuals and you have the perfect illustration of what Israel faced in Gaza and
Lebanon. Especially with regard to rocket attacks but useful for any kind of terrorist
attack, deliberate is the right word to use to call out the intent behind the attacks. This is
far more powerful than describing the attacks as “random.”
• “Economic Diplomacy”: This is a much more embracing and popular term than the
current lexicon of “sanctions.” It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough
economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies
Democrats.
• “Economic Prosperity”: Whenever Israel talks about the “economic prosperity” of the
Palestinians, it puts Israel in the most positive light possible. After all, who can disagree?
• Examples of Peace Efforts: Constantly cite Israel’s past efforts and sacrifices for peace
with moderate Arab leaders also willing to work for peace. But don’t dwell on the past.
Property of The Israel Project. Not for distribution or publication. 2009. 20
Simply present these past examples as the best reasons why Israel remains committed to
making peace in the future.
• “Equal rights”: Emphasize that Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights and
equal protections under the law in Israel. But don’t stop there: “The tragedy is that
Palestinians have far less rights under their government than Israeli Arabs have under
ours.”
• Human to Human: Appealing directly to the Palestinian people on behalf of the Israeli
people takes the issue out of the political realm and humanizes it. “We know that the
average Palestinian and the average Israeli want to come together and make peace.
They want to live in peace. Israeli leaders have come together with Arab leaders to make
peace in the past. But how do you make peace with Hamas and Hezbollah?”
• Humanize Rockets: Paint a vivid picture of what life is like in Israeli communities that
are vulnerable to attack. Yes, cite the number of rocket attacks that have occurred. But
immediately follow that up with what it is like to make the nightly trek to the bomb
shelter.
• “If… If… If…Then.”: Put the burden on Hamas to make the first move for peace by
using If’s (and don’t forget to finish with a hard then to show Israel is a willing peace
partner). “If Hamas reforms… If Hamas recognize our right to exist… If Hamas
renounces terrorism… If Hamas supports international peace agreements… then we are
willing to make peace today.”
• “Living together, side by side. This is the best way to describe the ultimate vision of a
two-state solution without using the phrase.
• “Militant Islam”: This is the best term to describe the terrorist movement. Avoid Bushera
sounding terms like “Islamo-fascism.”
• “Mutual respect”: You want to put the conflict in perspective. “The best way, the only
way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect.” This relieves the pressure on
Israel and places it squarely on Hamas and Hezbollah. In fact, the fastest way to
demonstrate an open-minded approach and differentiate Israel’s aims from Hamas and,
frankly, Fatah, is to talk about your respect for the Palestinian people. “We do not have
the right to tell the Palestinians whom to elect to represent them. We hope they will
choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. We respect their right to live in
peace and prosperity. All we ask is for them to respect the same for us.”
• “Nobody has to leave their homes”: This is the most winning phrase in the lexicon of
settlements. Use the principle of mutuality to explain that just as Arab Israelis are not
expected to move out of their homes in Israel, Jews in a new Palestinian state should be
allowed to stay in their homes, too.
• “One step at a time, one day at a time”: It is essential to lower expectations and reduce
the pressure on Israel to rush into an agreement that is either not in its interests or
jeopardizes its security. The “one step at a time” language will be accepted as a
common sense approach to the land-for-peace equation.
Property of The Israel Project. Not for distribution or publication. 2009. 21
• “Peace before political boundaries”: This is the best phrase for talking about why a
two-state solution isn’t realistic right now. First the rockets and the war need to stop.
Then both peoples can talk about political boundaries.
• “Persistence” and “perseverance” : It is not just the effort that matters. It’s the
intensity of that effort. The fact that against great odds and obvious provocations Israel
still seeks peace will be appreciated by all audiences.
• “Prevention”: With respect to Iran, this is your best word for the overall approach to
their quest for nuclear weapons. Not “preemption.”
• “The RIGHT to”: This is a stronger phrase than “deserves.” Use the phrase frequently,
including: the rights that both Israelis and Arabs enjoy in Israel, the right to peace that
Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to, and Israel’s right to defend its civilians against
rocket attacks.
• “Societal Progress”: This is a dangerous term unless used to address the aspirations of
the Palestinian people. First talk about how “the Palestinians have the right to the same
societal progress that is happening in Europe and Asia.” Then address the freedoms they
lack – and the freedoms they deserve. Americans and Europeans see “societal progress”
as a moral imperative and a fundamental necessity for eliminating the root causes of
terrorism.
• “Specific Plan of Action”: Even if the plan will take time, Americans want to know that
there is a specific plan of action to which both sides can and will be held accountable.
Whether you’re talking about the peace process with the Palestinians or the process of
preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, use this phrase to describe your
approach.
• “We have all made mistakes.” People do not expect Israel to be 100 percent successful
in all their efforts to stop terrorism. Admitting that Israel has and continues to make
mistakes does not undermine the overall justice of Israel’s goals: peace and security and a
better quality of life for everyone. It does gain you much needed credibility.
• “We’re all in this together.” One of the most powerful phrases of 2009 in America can
easily be adapted to the situation in the Middle East. Acknowledging a common
condition not only communicates a realistic approach from the Israeli perspective but also
builds a sense of empathy.
• “Working toward a solution”: Americans don’t expect the dispute between Israel and
the Arabs to end overnight, but they absolutely need to know that “Israel is working to
find a solution that is acceptable to everyone involved.” This suggests positive intent.
This suggests progress. This suggests hope. And all three are important components of a
successful communication effort.